Whats is surprising is that DR and I both ended up running pretty close to our Daniels stipulated hour tempo paces despite not using the Daniels tempo chart. I ran just a tad easier than my suggest pace (6:41 was the suggested and 6:46 was what I ran) and DR ran slightly faster than his suggested pace (his suggested pace was 6:25 and he ran at a 6:21 pace). That could just be how hard we are willing to go in training runs in that DR is willing to take on a little more pain during a training run. Alternatively Joe has theorized that my racing is held less up my VO2max than other factors like ability to clear lactic acid and that may be why my natural instinct in a tempo is to run slightly slower than Daniel's suggested pace. However, that is a bit dubious because Daniel's tables are actually not based on your VO2max, then are based on your race times which would account for whatever factor limits you in a race whether it be VO2max, clearing lactic acid, leg endurance or whatever.

I've always found his 20 minute tempo paces to be extremely hard. They are virtually races. The pace is slightly slower than 5k race pace, but the duration is longer than 5k race duration. So it evens out to feel almost like a full effort 5k.

Also, apparently, we are better at the mile than any longer distance. One could make an argument that this is the result of us living at sea level.

I've always found his 20 minute tempo paces to be extremely hard. They are virtually races. The pace is slightly slower than 5k race pace, but the duration is longer than 5k race duration. So it evens out to feel almost like a full effort 5k.

Also, apparently, we are better at the mile than any longer distance. One could make an argument that this is the result of us living at sea level.

I used to think that too, but as my mileage goes up its getting easier and easier to do quality runs close to racing times. The 20 minutes tempos are definitely fast, but there is a decent difference between 5K race pace and tempo pace. For example if you can run a 17:49 which is about what you did last year at the track series he would have you run a 20 minute tempo at 6:09 pace, which is a 19:04 tempo plus 56 extra secnds. That is a 75 second difference or 23 to 24 seconds per mile.

I don't own the book at all, so you're welcome to input the entirety of all the tables if you're so inclined!

I like this thread. Also, I like the race videos thread. We often give links to videos, so why not in one place?

Durrr

posted: 5/2/2012 at 10:01 AMmodified: 5/2/2012 at 10:08 AM

My protest might be to change this thread to just "Tables", as Daniels isn't the only authority out there. And by the same token I wish that Rick would've made "NFL Talk" simply "Sports Talk", which would've left room for some hockey talky (though such discussions would likely have been even less prolific than the football banter was).

My protest might be to change this thread to just "Tables", as Daniels isn't the only authority out there. And by the same token I wish that Rick would've made "NFL Talk" simply "Sports Talk", which would've left room for some hockey talky (though such discussions would likely have been even less prolific than the football banter was).

If you want to post about hockey there thats fine. I am not a huge hockey fan but I am least watching parts of the games now that they are in the playoffs.

I am a huge Daniels fan because I feel his book really helped me understand the basics of training. I can have an intelligent conversation on a lot of training topics just from what I learned in that book. But I actually do not always follow his trainings principles that closely and a lot of runners don't either. For example, DR runs very few Daniel's type intervals (1200 repeats or shorter with minimial rest) yet DR has gotten great improvement. Steve Magness mentions how he went away from Daniel's principles and still had success... http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/08/do-we-need-vo2max-workouts.html

That said, I do think most coaches think of that book as kind of the collection of convention training wisdom though with a distinctive Daniel's slant. When Magness says he deviates from Daniel's interval principles he kind of cites Daniel's as the conventional wisdom and then states why he does not follow that really strictly. I have seen other fairly famous running advice personalities do that. Part of that is probably simply a function that it is probably the most popular training book. Before Daniel's some of those principles may not have considered the norm, but just one alternative of a few alternative philosophies. By the way DR, Magness has a similar philosophy to Joe and DR when it comes to intervals

My protest might be to change this thread to just "Tables", as Daniels isn't the only authority out there. And by the same token I wish that Rick would've made "NFL Talk" simply "Sports Talk", which would've left room for some hockey talky (though such discussions would likely have been even less prolific than the football banter was).

Are you aware that you could start a new thread titled "McMillan Tables' if you want to? Or a new thread titled "Hockey Talk"?

It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

Durrr

posted: 5/2/2012 at 1:57 PMmodified: 5/2/2012 at 2:19 PM

Ah but I'm a major proponent of condensing an streamlining threads. The beauty of Banter is that so many random subjects worthy of, well, bantering all fit neatly within that thread. This is why I always appreciated the thread habits of this LOER forum over the antiquated old CBRC Forum --- on which a new thread would be created for every race, group long run, or stray thought. Then again I agree that Race Videos is a worthy thread, as those are specific and frequently shared.